What Color Tin Foil Hat Would You Like?

Here is my answer to those who are intelligent enough to think for themselves and who wish to know more about the events of 9-11 and the obvious lies told to us by our government.

To get your feet wet, watch Tower 7 come down. Watch the Trade Center owner say that they "decided to pull it" because of the "fire". Ask yourself, what does "pull it" means? Are all Manhattan skyscrapers wired to explode at their owner's command? Why has corporate media never played this video at all even though they are the ones who took it (it is CBS footage, I believe). Why haven't we seen it 67 times a day as we have with the other two towers? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI&NR=1

Here is "Hunt the Boeing", a favorite site of mine. How did the plane that hit the Pentagon disappear completely? Where is the wreckage and where are the bodies? Where are the wings? Why is the lawn still pristine right after the hit? Why is the hole too small for the size of plane they claim hit the Pentagon? http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

This is Mike Ruppert's site, "From The Wilderness". He was an L.A. cop fired for investigating CIA drug connections to South America. He sued, got a large settlement and set himself up as an investigative journalist (maybe one of the last we'll ever see). Read items 50-54 especially regarding "put options" (basically they are bets that a stock will decline in value). The 9/11 Commission's findings on the historical trading activity going on ONLY on United and American Airlines just prior to 9/11 was that an investigation of these specific activities would not prove foreknowledge so ... they refused to investigate it further.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/02_11_02_lucy.html

The film listed below "Loose Change" was made by a combat vet who served in Iraq. The information in it was incredible when I saw first saw it in 2002 but it has since gotten even more amazing. If you're thinking of buying a copy, get "Loose Change - Final Edition".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE

I wrote this blurb below for our own showing of Loose Change some time back;

"Almost 60% of New Yorkers don't believe that 9/11 happened the way our government says it does. I have lots of questions myself. I want to know why Tower 7 (a third Trade Center tower) imploded at 5:20 pm on 9/11 and never gets shown on TV at all? I want to know why the hole in the Pentagon looks far too small to fit a 757 cockpit? I want to know where the plane's wreckage went? I want to know who bought all those "put options" (only on) United and American Airlines stock in the weeks preceding 9/11? Surely, these people had foreknowledge and need to be questioned and prosecuted? I want to know why we are being lied to about the War Games being played that day and also the day of the London Tube bombings (what amazingly improbable coincidence in both cases!). I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to find answers to these questions. One of the best places to start your own search for truth is this brave film, LOOSE CHANGE, made by an Iraq War Vet who wanted answers to some very reasonable questions (as any good patriot should). If you'd like to know more about the "official story" and how it just doesn't add up, get your feet wet." www.journalof911studies.com/beginners.html

Take this all in small doses. There's a lot to digest. Don't think of any of it as "conspiracy theory", though. More like ... critical thinking. There are very few definitive answers to any of the questions one can ask about what really happened but knowing that our government is lying to us all about it and is unwilling to investigate the truth is key. There had to government involvement or complicity. Incompetence just isn't a good enough answer for what they have done. It simply doesn't ring true. Check it out for yourself!

Obama's Inauguration

I want to be happy for all my happy friends but I simply can't.

They all say the same thing; "Give Obama a chance! Don;t be negative/cynical/pessimistic!"

Well, how about realistic?

Obama has already told us quite plainly what he will do about the issues of the day. We don't have to wait for his first challenge to know what he will do.

We are in a health care crisis and over 100 million Americans are without meaningful (or any) access to health care. Single-Payer would fix the problem and save about $700 Billion dollars annually. Obama has announced a plan which, like Clinton's, costs more than we currently spend and allows the HMO's to continue raping and pillaging.

We have killed somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqis. Barack has said we need to keep killing but shift our focus to Afghani civilians and he has also admitted that we will continue staffing those 14 military bases in Iraq indefinitely.

Israel has destroyed 55,000 Palestinian homes and killed more than 1,000 civilians (as compared to 4 Israelis). In keeping with the desires of the military-industrial complex, Obama has said that he is fine with Israel "protecting itself".

We are on the verge of environmental disaster. Hydro power, wind power or "clean coal" and "safe nuclear". You are now fully aware of his "clean energy" policy.

Our economy is totally failing. Obama supported and worked for a bailout to aid rich speculators at the expense of the poor.

Why should we be optimistic when Obama has so clearly tipped his hand already! Ruling class politician. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I'd like to "hope" that I'm wrong but you know that I'm not.

Martin Luther King - Activist or Preacher?

Every year, argument breaks out in community rooms and meeting halls and cafes and bars as small groups of people get together to decide what the legacy of the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. is from their perspective and how their community should mark the day.

There is usually a real push and pull between those who wish to use MLK Day as a way to tame Martin's message and those who wish to fully explore the entire message that Martin tried to convey (the fight against the "giant triplets" of poverty racism and militarism).

In many places, numerous different celebrations occur running the full gamut when it comes to perspectives. I think that this would please Martin because it denotes a real attempt to both co-opt and protect his message. This demonstrates that his legacy and his message have roots that are deep and relevant.

This year, I took some heat from a few friends who felt that the Glens Falls event this year was not "activist" enough. We had our usual short march to Christ Church and listened to music and sang and listened to remarks by a woman, Dr. Glorya Askew, who is a Head Chaplain with the N.Y.S. Department of Corrections. I really let the newly formed NAACP and the Democrats amongst us take the lead. Obamamania is in the air and I didn't want to rain on anyone's parade. I knew he would be an important part of the day's remarks. As such, I took a backseat this year as far as the organizing went.

The Post-Star did its usual advance story on Thursday consisting of an interview with Roy Thomas about the resurgence of the local NAACP (of which I am a member). It included his plans for the NAACP locally and made mention of his involvement in this year's MLK organizing (with no mention of any of the others involved). They made only brief reference to the keynote speaker choosing to focus instead on the two white local politicians whose 90 second remarks would see us off from City Hall on to the march.

Now, understand, I do not hate either of these dignitaries and am, in fact, pleased that they wish to celebrate with us each year. That said, Martin was an enemy of the status quo and those who defended it. He was a preacher, a thinker and an activist. Dr. Askew deserved to be recognized as the primary speaker and someone of note and she wasn't.

When the PS did its actual story on the event, they did the same thing, giving preferential treatment to the white politicians and virtually ignoring the African American woman we had all chosen to speak to us on this day. She was fantastic, too, so its even more shameful.

This type of institutional racism is a good reason for us to stop celebrating the "end of racism" the media keeps crowing about. Its far from over when a bunch of white reporters and editors get together and write about white people of power who attended the event and not the African American woman we were there to listen to.

The Green State of the State - Single Payer Health Care

The State Green Party invited me to attend a press conference in Albany to respond to Governor Patterson's State of the State. Here is a link to WNYT's coverage and below is a text copy of my remarks.

http://wnyt.com/article/stories/S735158.shtml?cat=10114

My name is Matt Funiciello. I am the owner of a bread bakery and cafe in Glens Falls, N.Y. I currently employ 36 people. I am here today to deliver my own brief state of the state from a small business owner’s perspective. This is not the perspective of a lobby group purporting to represent small business. It is the perspective of someone who has actually run a small business in New York state for over 20 years.

As this economic downturn began, small business owners, like the majority of Americans, saw substantial increases in energy costs and commensurate increases in most other goods and supplies. In my industry, we were already struggling with the negative impact of increasing wheat prices as corn subsidies encouraged many wheat farmers to grow corn for ethanol. This created a terrible “food for fuel” quandary in which the corn lobbies seem to have been the only clear winners.

While our costs have steadily increased so has the cost of living for our workers. Even so, we have not been able to make pay increases to keep up with cost of living as our sales have been in decline. We were actually forced to implement a small pay cut in September of 2008 and I was eventually forced to sell my home and borrow a substantial sum of money to keep my business afloat as the year progressed and we suffered the additional negative effects of a fire.

We ceased carrying health insurance about a year ago as costs skyrocketed along with co-pays and pharmaceutical prices. We had to discontinue our retirement plan as we were no longer able to afford to participate in it. Many of our restaurant and retail accounts have been adversely affected as well by decreased consumer spending. Several long-time customers have even thrown in the towel.

I say all of this not as some kind of litany of woes but as an example of what the typical business owner is actually going through. We are a tough bunch and we will make it but, make no mistake, we are hurting. If you wish to understand the direct impact the recession is having on those in the working and middle class, look no further. We have tightened our belts, cut costs and minimized our needs, but we are still prepared to sacrifice more if we have to. We would, however, like to know that every single person in the state is joining with us in this suffering and sacrifice and that we are not being asked to shoulder the burden entirely.

Governor Patterson said yesterday that, “We cannot solve our problems overnight or without sacrifice - they run too deep for that. These problems may last for many more months or even years. But we can solve them and, with courage, we can craft a brighter, smarter future for New York.”

I agree with those sentiments, but I think we need to put a little bit of common sense in there before we continue with the sacrifice.

I don’t know about your economy but bailing out banks and insurance companies seems to have had very little impact on mine, thus far. I know that the Wall Street bailout was hardly Governor Patterson’s doing but I know that it is a perfect example of why we HAVE to find answers at the state level for the problems of the day. We simply cannot depend on the federal government to do what is right or just when things are broken.

If we leave it up to the fed or follow their lead, the problems New Yorkers are now facing will go unsolved. The biggest problem, without any doubt, is health care. In fact, according to a recent survey conducted by the Business Council of NY, health care is the single biggest issue for business owners in New York State. Worker’s comp rates came in a distant second.

Governor Patterson says we “need the courage to balance our budget as well as our priorities.” Well, he is absolutely right and small business has spoken loudly about the priority; it is health care. The question becomes, How do

we balance our budget while insuring the millions of New Yorkers who lack coverage?

I know the answer and, in reality, so does the Governor. That’s why I was absolutely horrified yesterday to see him openly advocate for more bureaucratic and incremental answers to our health care crisis rather than the sweeping reform we so desperately need.

Where health care is concerned, there is one clear answer and it is Single-Payer Health Care. It is basically the Canadian Health Care system with a few twists. It’s a clear and intelligent answer to a pressing problem. The Governor’s advocacy for building additional bureaucracies in our state with substandard care and inconsistent access is not such an answer. We need to get rid of the HMO’s and administrate our state’s health care through one mechanism instead of the hundreds that currently exist. It is projected that just that one bold move would save us 25-30% of what we currently pay for health care.

The Canadian system costs about $5200 per person with universal coverage and if you question its efficiency, you should know that, propaganda aside, Canadians live a full year longer than we do. You should also know that no sober, literate, Canadian would even consider switching health plans with anyone living in the U.S. unless they were forced to at gunpoint.

Here, in the U.S., we spend about $7200 per person on health care. Bear in mind that this is with about 60 million people completely uncovered and another 50 million or so ‘underinsured’. With all the layoffs projected from the recession, these numbers will increase dramatically. The incredible truth is that if we adopted Single-Payer Health Care in this country, we would actually be spending far less on care and everyone would be covered. It’s really a common sense approach to the problem.

Thanks to John Conyers and Denis Kucinich, there is already a resolution before congress, HR 676, which does have sponsors, but we need to be realistic about its chances in Washington. The resolution is unlikely to pass. There is simply too much HMO and pharmaceutical money floating around the Capitol for our public servants to do what is just. Many people think of my congresswoman, Kirsten Gillibrand, as a progressive of some kind. She, just like Barack Obama, and now New York’s Governor, has refused to discuss single payer at any level and has refused to support HR 676 even though she knows it is the best, most economical answer.

With our federal representatives doing such a poor job of representing us, we need Governor Patterson to help us resolve this issue right now, right here at home. We can have a single-payer system right here in New York state. We are projected to spend some $140 billion dollars in this state on health care in 2009. If we were to set up a single-payer health plan and spend a similar amount to what the Canadians do per capita, we would be saving $1,800 per person over what is already being spent with EVERY New Yorker covered. Who knows? Maybe we could start living a year longer, too!

Governor, business leaders are telling you that health care is the single biggest issue on the state's agenda but we can also tell you that there is a simple solution. Now is the time for our state government to implement solutions that actually make sense and not just those that seem politically feasible. We have suffered enough. Our workers have suffered enough. How, as a state, can we lose? How can it not make sense to save boatloads of money during a recession while ensuring that every citizen of New York has total access to health care?

The Governor called this recession “the gravest economic challenge in nearly a century.” Well, it seems to me that it really doesn’t have to be if we can just make decisions together which benefit everyone in our state and not just special interest groups and lobbies. Please, Governor Patterson, do what is right and support single-payer health care. Support common sense

Someone Who Actually Should Have Hillary's Seat

The New York Times blog picked up our attempt to have a real representative replace Hillary rather than more ruling class celebrity carpet-baggers.

http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/heres-someone-gov-paterson-may-not-have-thought-of-for-hillarys-senate-seat/

Third-Party Blind Spot - John F. Kirch

Democracy suffers when the news media ignore long-shot candidates and the
ideas they espouse

While the news media did an effective job this year of covering the
presidential campaign between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John
McCain, the press still has a major blind spot when it comes to writing
about third-party contenders.

According to a basic LexisNexis database search of election coverage
from Aug. 5 to Nov. 5, The Washington Post and The New York Times
published a combined 3,576 news stories, editorials, op-eds,
photographs and letters to the editor about Mr. Obama and 3,205 items
about Mr. McCain. By contrast, the two dailies published only 36 items
about independent Ralph Nader, 22 about Libertarian Bob Barr, five
about Green Cynthia McKinney and three about the Constitution Party's
Chuck Baldwin.

The Baltimore Sun was not much better, publishing 384 news items about
Mr. Obama, 327 about Mr. McCain, eight about Mr. Nader, four on Mr.
Barr and two each for Ms. McKinney and Mr. Baldwin.

None of these candidates garnered more than 2 percent of the popular
vote on Election Day. But how third-party candidates are covered by the
news media is an important issue that should be taken more seriously,
given that we live in a democratic society that proclaims deference to
the First Amendment and honors the notion that we are all better off
when a wide range of proposals are aired.

The news media are allowing themselves to be co-opted by the Democrats
and Republicans into viewing campaigns solely through the prism of the
two-party system. This means that the major parties control which
issues are permitted into the debate, thus denying the public a chance
to hear proposals that might seem extreme today but could gain traction
in the future if only voters had an opportunity to consider them more
seriously. Remember, third parties have been the catalyst for many
reforms throughout American history, including the abolition of
slavery, tough child-labor laws, free public education, strong business
regulations, direct election of senators and women's suffrage.

By including more substantive coverage of third-party candidates, the
press could help open the door to innovative alternatives to old
issues. It might force the two major candidates to come off message
more often and eventually adopt the new ideas pushed by otherwise
marginalized candidates, much like the Republican Party did when it
absorbed some of Ross Perot's proposals after the 1992 election.

Part of the reason that the news media ignore most third-party
candidates is that most journalists tend to view campaigns almost
exclusively as a contest of winners and losers. The criteria by which
journalists judge candidates play to the strengths of the major parties
and set up a no-win situation for all other contenders: Third-party
candidates are not covered because they do not demonstrate public
support, but they cannot gain public support because they are not
covered by the news media.

In addition, viewing campaigns mostly as a "contest" is a mistake,
because numerous political science studies conducted over the past 50
years strongly suggest that campaigns actually have little impact on
election results.

Where campaigns really matter is in their ability to educate the public
about new ideas. Studies have shown that while voters don't always
remember the specific policy proposals of each candidate when they go
to the ballot box, they nevertheless learn enough during the course of
a campaign to make sound judgments about which path the country should
take.

What this tells us is that campaigns are about more than just the horse
race. They are a time in the nation's political life cycle when voters
consider the problems facing the country and look for a wide range of
solutions. Including minor-party candidates in this debate could infuse
new ways of looking at old issues, challenge basic political
assumptions and create avenues for new movements to challenge the
hegemony of the Democrats and Republicans.

John F. Kirch is an adjunct professor of journalism at Towson
University and the University of Maryland. His e-mail is
jfk909us@aol.com

A Response To Brian Mann

This entry is a response to Brian Mann, "Ralph Nader manages To Be Relevant Again, Sort Of"

http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/blogs/ballotbox/blogger.php


Brian, as always I find it very disturbing that much of your argument as a Democrat is simply based on the feeling that if I and others could not vote for Ralph Nader, we would vote for the Democrat's corporate prole instead.

Just in case there is any doubt in your mind, we would NEVER do so. Simply can't see the margin in it. I don't ever vote for the two war parties' candidates regardless of which side of the fake aisle they pretend they're on. Not ever.

I also take great umbrage at the constant labeling of "Naderites" as "fans". We are not "fans". We are SUPPORTERS. We support Ralph's platform. I came to see things in a very similar common sense way to Nader long before I really knew much about him or knew him which I do). That's something I find that most Nader SUPPORTERS have in common and do not share with our two-party brethren. We are not followers. We can all articulate our viewpoints and argue them. I resist the urge to call Democrats "Obamaniacs" (regardless of the temptation) so please give us a little more credit than that. I see far less substance on your chosen side of the aisle than on mine.

All that aside, part of the Democrats' mantra is that great damage can only be done by Republicans. This is patently ridiculous. Bill Clinton waged a daily bombing war against the civilian population of Iraq and starved a million children to death there. He destroyed our manufacturing base by pushing NAFTA through (a corporate Republican enslavement plan that the Reaganites couldn't get through congress even when they had a majority). He passed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and Workfare.

Clinton failed to get us meaningful health care (that's why he had is wife spearhead it, so the "failure" would be attached to her). Its no accident that she became the second highest recipient of HMO and Big Pharma money in history.

I could go on for days but the basic point is this; Obama is NOT different than the Clintons and Bush is not Satan. He's just another smarmy blue blood fleecing the public without style or grace. Democrats are no longer different than Republicans. Our new president ill simply take on the mantle of CEO of USA Inc.

He will keep us at war and occupation in the Middle East for the same reasons that we went in the first place, control of oil and the military industrial complex's need for bloodshed to feed its constantly gaping maw.

We will not have single payer health care. We will have mandatory HMO care at twice the price of any modern country.

We will see no living wage passed at the federal level.

We will see more socialism. Not the kind where Rush and the John Birchers run around screaming that "Obama is a commie" but the REAL kind where $700 billion is given to Wall Street speculators for no good reason anyone can think of at the expense of those who work for a living. Socialism for the rich. Capitalism for the poor.

Clean energy? Where was that during this campaign? Clean COAL? SAFE nukes? We will not see wind and solar developed along with a national energy job creation plan which is what we need NOW.

Democrats like to say that Bush is the devil and that Gore would have been better. You know Gore, the "environmental hero" who should be best known for never doing anything for the environment in his entire political career but who is instead known for his little enviro-movie (he should primarily be known as the guy who refused to fight for the rights of 57,000 disenfranchised black voters in Florida in 2000). We all know that Gore never would have gone to war in Iraq even though exactly the same conscienceless corporations run him that ran Bush. Says who?

Democrats love to say that John Kerry (the guy who had a draft on his 2004 campaign website and who voted for all the wars Bush has spearheaded) would have been a much better president and would have gotten us out of Iraq. From his Senate record, I see absolutely NO evidence of this at all.

My own feeling is that Democrats are happy to support COVERT fascism but like to stop short of those crazy Republicans and their OVERT fascism.

I am not any better off having an intellectual articulate a case for war than I am when a simpleton does it. Either way, it kills children. I do not choose either.

I choose common sense. I choose Nader. It is a matter of principle as you say BUT in NY, and in 39 other states, it is also the only position that makes ANY sense if one understands the electoral college. Why vote for either type of fascism in a SAFE STATE? Where's the margin in that? How is this a success? It is the poster child for throwing your vote away!

That said, Nader did NOT call Obama an "Uncle Tom". he said that Obama now had to choose between being an "Uncle Sam" for the American people or an "Uncle Tom" for the corporations that put him in office. Big difference but thats what you get for watching Fox News and taking things out of context.

Lets revisit this in a year when we're still in Iraq, we've seen another bailout and are still without health care. Lets talk about what kind of "Uncle" you think Obama is then. ;-)

Peace,
Matt

P.S. Remember Molly Ivins; "You gotta dance with those what brung ya". Obama received more money from Corporate America than any president in history. Who do you think he'll be dancing with?

New York Times (like you've NEVER seen before)

This beautiful issue of the NY Times says it all to those who voted Obama and chose to "believe" that he will be markedly different than the death merchants from the other side of the aisle.

http://www.nytimes-se.com/

A million copies of this paper were printed and handed out on the streets of New York. It is believed to be the work of the Yes Men (from RPI, the people behind WhirlMart and some great pranks and hoaxes on mainstream media).

Warning: Reading this might make some people wish that instead of a visit to the "Church" of Obama to practice their faith, they had instead made a trip to the "Library" of Ralph Nader or Ron Paul in an attempt to practice their analytical skills!

What I Really Want To Know

I consider myself a third party activist. I only support independents and Greens and Libertarians. I do not vote for Democrats or Republicans, ever. As such, I am often asked my opinion by those who play the two party game. I try to be civil and decent. I try to help them understand my viewpoint and I sincerely try to understand theirs.

Over the last decade, I have asked a few questions that I really figure any two-party denizen should be able to answer ... simply to restore my faith in humanity's ability to reason if for no other reason. Can you help me?

I asked Alan Chartok (of our NPR affiliate, WAMC) and his pals on The Media Project, Ira and Rex, to comment on why the media gives Ralph Nader zero coverage during each election cycle. I asked this because I believe that ALL media ignores thrid party candidates on purpose to prop up our system of corporate machine politics. This of course raised the hackles of all three. All of their media mechanisms covered Ralph 2-3 times over the past year. In their view, thats much better coverage than other media gave him. They wondered aloud what my problem is, then? Rex Smith (the Albany Times Union editor) even piped in to say that he felt that Nader already had his time in the sun and that his message doesn't resonate any longer with the American public. Thats why they don't cover him.

There are two huge problems with this narrow answer to my broad question;

1) Does anyone who appreciates the promise of democracy really think that the 1/4 of 1% of media coverage Nader actually got in 2000 was "fair coverage" by any reasonable measure of the word? He was polling 10-18% during that election cycle and it certianly seesm thatbwere he given 10-18% of the coverage that he would have been in the debates which might well have given him a win. Can Nader or othr independents ever truly "resonate" with anyone when the populace is subjected to the two corporate candidates 100 times a day for an entire year and are not even made aware of their many other choices? 36,500 to 3 mentions. Is this really the "liberal" media's idea of "fair and balanced"?

2) If its just Ralph Nader who has worn us all out, why then does corporate media also basically ignore ALL the other independents and third party candidates, as well? In this election cycle, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Chuck Baldwin, Gloria LaRiva and Roger Calero were all basically ignored, too. No one even knew about them. How could they possibly have "worn us all out" or "had their time in the sun"? Why is it that THEY didn't deserve to be covered at all? I'm not sure that I can see this behavior as anything short of willful and criminal manipulation of our information and our democracy.

A member of the local DFA chapter asked me Wednesday if I was "happy". You could see that Obama's victory made him feel that a cloud had lifted. His "team" had "won". I would write "Bob" off as a loon except that many other Democrats reached out to me withg similar sentiments, many of whom I respect greatly. To be frank, I feel sorry for people like "Bob". In my world, the ruling and the corporate classes control our democracy. That's a terrible truth but being awake to it allows me to avoid all the emotional highs and lows and the football team mentality that so many Americans seem caught up in.

I know that my fight as a citizen is a daily one against the corporate power that chokes democracy. Its never a winner take all battle waged once every four years. I don't suffer severe depression when a Bush is in office nor do I feel like I just ate a bag of mushrooms because we've elected an Obama. I don't expect the ruling class to deliver me any substantive change for the better regardless of which puppet they say is "our leader". I'm a realist.

I asked "Bob" the same question I have been asking Democrats for ten years, thus far;

"I have been working outside the Democratic Party because I do not believe that the change I want can ever come from such a flawed and co-opted machine. If just one Democrat would tell me what it is EXACTLY that has been accomplished over the last forty years by "working from within", I might better understand why you people do it. Just humor me ... tell me what specific piece of legislation has been passed by either corporate party that could demonstrably be considered pro-worker?"

"Bob" responded heatedly, "I'm not going to answer that but we're a damn sight better than the Republicans. Thats all I have to say." "Bob" then walked out.

This "walking out" is the reason why better than 100 million Americans don't vote in any election cycle. They see no visible, pragmatic reason to do so and we refuse to explain how it works to anyone's benefit to vote. Is it possible that we're not really sure ourselves?

Forgive Me For Not Jumping Around Like An Idiot

While about 70 million Americans are feeling elated today, slightly less than 60 million are fairly disappointed (bear in mind that there are over 300 million of us). This is the nature of our two-party dictatorship. While a significant minority of us are walking around with election hangover, a HUGE majority of Americans (about 170 million) are simply left wondering why all these people are so concerned about which Sales Rep will head the corporation known as USA, Inc for the next four fiscal years.

In my lifetime, these "CEO's" have proven themselves to be a slippery lot who do nothing for the working class and who pander to their corporate donor base and the shrinking middle class, handing out pork like after dinner mints at a Greek diner. Why would the majority of us care which puppet you've selected to mislead us this time? It really doesn't matter. The small percentage of us who are awake, who do vote and who are politically active know that our candidates (Nader, Barr, McKinney, Paul, Kucinich, LaRiva, Calero) are not going to win. We just feel like showing our fellow citizens that you don't HAVE to do what the machine wants you to is quintessentially American. You CAN vote independent or third party. You don't have to play the game by their rules.

The other 90% of this majority are inactive and don't vote at all. They are not stupid. In many cases they are street smart. They are workers. They know the system is rigged. They think we are all crazy to bother. They know that the empire is crumbling. They know their jobs are in serious danger. They know there is no health care. They know wages are too low. They know what the mortgage crisis means first hand. They are not apathetic. They are seething.

Will an Obama or McCain presidency be markedly different for any of these people. Obviously they don't think so.

Will Obama get us out of Iraq? Will he "unbuild" the corporate and military entrenchment we have undertaken there? Will he reverse our course to occupy Syria or Pakistan or Korea? Of course not. We're all toast. Obama will put a nicer face on our fascism but its pretty hard to dress up this pig we call American foreign policy (never mind the lipstick).

Will Obama put forward articles of impeachment to ensure that the war criminal Bush and his cronies go to prison for torture, war profiteering, mass murder and the suspension of our Constitution? Of course not. Honor among thieves. Future presidents can feel safe bringing the jackboot down because Obama is here to show them there will be no repercussions.

Will we get health care? While those who read know that Single Payer Health Care is the only proven answer to universal health care worldwide, Obama has been supporting an unfundable, Hillary-style, corporate plan that will allow the HMO's and Big Pharma to continue profiteering from human misery, making 25% net incomes, while denying care to sick people. 18,000 Americans will die in Obama's first year in office alone because they lack access to health care. He will not change this even with the clear mandate the people have given him.

Will Obama end our racist prison industrial complex and decriminalize marijuana and hemp? Will Obama open the gates and release the millions of black prisoners imprisoned for non-violent crime and fill the prisons with the white collar criminals who have fleeced the Amercian worker repeatedly? Of course not. Prisons are great economic development. They are loved by Dems and Reps alike and Wall Street is the source of many huge campaign contributions. Don't bite the hand that feeds you!

Will we see NAFTA or GATT renegotiated to include labor laws and environmental restrictions to protect our air and water and our jobs and our standard of living? Of course not.

So many "progressives" have said to me over the course of this day, "Well, at least McCain didn't win! Lets give Obama a chance!"

In truth, although the man, John McCain, didn't win, the class he represents and the agenda they put forward DID win yesterday. It seems that, once again, we the people, have learned nothing.

Corporate media told you that McCain and Obama were your only choice. They told it you from every angle and at every location and with amazing frequency (about 6,000,000 times a day). You believed 'em and you voted for McBama. Why does it never occur to you that you shouldn't EVER do what the machine tells you to? Have you not read your Orwell?

It would be great if you thought for a minute about what I am saying. I am admittedly not happy about what just happened. In my world, fewer than 1.5% of those who bothered to vote had the good sense to vote for a human being. About 98.5% of those voting are "happy" to have voted for one major corporation or the other. I am not "happy" about that. Its truly a terrifying thing to contemplate.

Over the next four years, as your values are betrayed and the media makes up all kinds of lies to excuse these betrayals and you start to fall for this fake, two-party, liberal vs. conservative, polarization all over again, try to remember what I have said here and use that awareness to propel you to try something different next time around. Vote for a human being. Ignore what the machine is telling you. How many times will you do the machine's bidding before you get it?